It’s About the Hate: Republicans Boo General
Nov 29
Th GOP anti-gay stance? Pretty much all about the hate:
The general not only challenged the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy; he did so by turning the tables. Why, he wanted to know, did the candidates not trust the professionalism of American soldiers to work with gay men and lesbians?
As it turns out, the good general was in the audience, and when Cooper gave the elderly gentleman — who served more than 40 years in the military — the microphone, Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr (ret.) was booed by an audience of Republicans.
This man served, at risk to life and limb, for forty years. And the GOP audience booed him. Why? becasue he wanted to know why the candidates did not trust US soldiers to be professional enough to work with gay men like himself. To boo such a man on such an issue displays a visceral level of hatred to gays that is almost pathological. This man served our country. He deserves praise and a respect for that, even if you disagree with him on the matter of homosexuals in the military. Indeed, the GOP makes a fetish over supporting the troops, in some cases even going so far as to say that criticizing the conduct of the war, or the President’s strategies, or the conduct of individual soldiers is tantamount to treason. But apparently that only applies to straight officers. Homosexual officers? Well, they deserve all the derision that can be heaped upon them.
If that isn’t politics based on hate and bigotry, then no such thing exists.
I now look forward to the comments being flooded with “You big meanie! You liberals hate on us for our hate! How awful!” and “The generals say serving alongside blacks, er, gays, will be bad for unit cohesion!”
#1 by SayUncle at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Actually, I thought the Clinton plant was booed by a very small portion of the audience. He did, however, make the candidates look bad.
#2 by Dan M. at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Gay is the new black. Civil unions are the new Jim Crow.
#3 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
And you are nuts.
#4 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
It’s heatwarming to see such warm support for a general from liberals, especially after the General Pratraeus debacle.
#5 by tgirsch at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Yes, Morris, because criticizing someone for who he is is exactly the same thing as criticizing someone for what he does.
#6 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Is the general a homosexual? I know he is on a Hillary steering committee about homosexuals. I do criticize someone for the immoral acts he does.
#7 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Maybe the general should criticize his candidate’s husband. He is the one who instituted the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
#8 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
“And the GOP audience booed him. Why? becasue he wanted to know why the candidates did not trust US soldiers to be professional enough to work with gay men like himself.”
He was booed after he with on and on with his rant.
#9 by Tim at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Got under your skin did he?
#10 by Morris at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
“Got under your skin did he?”
Not at all.
#11 by Dan M. at November 29th, 2007
| Quote
Morris,
” I do criticize [the homosexual general] for the immoral acts he does.”
So, what immoral acts has the general done? Even if we assume that he’s actually had homosexual sex, where’s the immorallity? Can you actually make an argument as to what’s wrong with homosexual sex?
(Hint, the rules for the worshippers of a wind god from 4000 years ago and that some empileptic Greek didn’t like being so Greek are not moral arguments.)
#12 by Morris at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
“(Hint, the rules for the worshippers of a wind god from 4000 years ago and that some empileptic Greek didn’t like being so Greek are not moral arguments.) ”
Since you are making up exclusive rules, there’s no need to respond.
#13 by Kevin at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
Here’s the thing: no one can point to a Bible verse that states that homsexual sex, per se, is inherently wrong. Not honestly, anyway.
#14 by Dan M. at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
Okay, Morris, does that mean that one of those two things is the reason you consider homosexual sex wrong?
It’s very simple: Tell us why you believe homosexual acts are immoral, and assess whether the rationale should apply to anyone else.
#15 by Morris at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
For some reason my response was tagged as spam. If the censor wants to post it, you will have my response.
#16 by tgirsch at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
“The censor” is Spam Karma 2, a commonly used anti-spam filter on Wordpress blogs (which this is). Anyway, I looked through the recently harvested spam, and didn’t find it. Sorry, but you’ll have to re-post. I imagine it probably had something to do with your desire to see America become a Christian theocracy.
(Frankly, I take the fact that it keeps flagging your comments as garbage to be evidence that the software is working well, but nobody is intentionally deleting anything. I know you don’t believe me about that, but I don’t care what you believe.)
#17 by Ted at November 30th, 2007
| Quote
tgirsch, that’s funny. And accurate. Spam being trash messages that have no meaningful content.
#18 by Dan M. at December 1st, 2007
| Quote
As far as spam goes, Morris, anything that consists mostly of links gets nixed. If you find it useful to post links in response, there’s a couple things that will circumvent the spam filters reasonably reliably: replace “http://” with “hxxp://” or just “://”; replace “.html” with “-dot-html”; similar tricks.